Jiya Lal And Another vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10901 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jiya Lal And Another vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 22 September, 2025

Author: Manish Mathur

Bench: Manish Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58228
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
  
 
 Reserved on 06.08.2025 
 
 Delivered on 22.09.2025
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
WRIT - A No. - 6766 of 2025    
 
   Jiya Lal And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Rural Development Lko. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ninnie Shrivastava, Mukul Misra, Sushma Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 8
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.    

1. Heard Ms. Ninnie Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petition has been filed challenging an order dated 01.03.2025 whereby the petitioners' claim for regularization in service has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to regularize services of petitioners in view of the relevant rules with all consequential service benefits including salary has been made.

3. It has been submitted that earlier, petitioners namely Jiya Lal and Shiv Kumar Maurya were engaged in service on 01.05.1989 and 01.01.1991 respectively in the District Rural Development Agency (D.R.A.D.) whereafter they filed Writ Petition No. 5355 (SS) of 1995 seeking regularization in service. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 01.05.2013 directing the authorities to consider petitioners' case for regularization keeping in view the Government order dated 08.09.2010, which provided that services of daily wage employees could be regularized provided they were engaged within the cut-off date i.e. 29.06.1991.

4. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of Writ Petition No. 5355 (S/S) of 1995, petitioners were orally terminated from service in the year 1999 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6860 of 1999 and this Court vide order dated 23.12.1999 directed opposite parties to permit petitioners to work on their post and for payment of their salaries.

5. It is submitted that in pursuance of directions issued on 01.05.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 5355 (S/S) of 1995, the claims of petitioners were considered and rejected by means of order dated 22.06.2013 primarily on the ground that petitioners did not work continuously as daily wage employees and that the District Rural Development Agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore, is not covered by the regularization rules.

6. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 878 of 2014 (SS), in which counter affidavit was invited but no interim relief was granted at that time. During pendency of that writ petition, the opposite parties again terminated services of petitioners orally leading to filing of Writ petition No. 24559 of 2016 (SS) in which this Court by means of interim order dated 07.10.2016 directed opposite parties to permit petitioners to continue to work on their posts and be paid salary. Subsequently in the aforesaid writ petition, by means of another interim order dated 11.05.2017, opposite parties were directed to consider regularization of petitioners. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the interim order dated 11.05.2017 to submit that the same was passed in the presence of Project Director D.R.D.A. who had been summoned by this Court and given an undertaking to continue petitioners in their current employment. It was also stated by the Project Director that petitioners had been absorbed in the Rural Development Department.

7. In pursuance of the order dated 11.05.2017, the order dated 29.05.2017 was passed and the claim of petitioners for regularization was again rejected primarily on the ground of financial constraint. The said order was thereafter challenged in Writ-A No. 22848 of 2017, which was also allowed by means of judgment and order dated 06.01.2025 directing opposite parties to consider claim of petitioners for regularization in accordance with law under the relevant rules considering the order dated 21.12.2016 issued by the State Government. It is in terms of such a liberty which was granted that impugned order has been passed and is under challenge.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners also submits that all the writ petitions previously filed by petitioner such a Writ Petitions No. 6860 of 1999, 878 of 2014 and 24559 of 2016 were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 06.01.2025.

9. With regard to raising challenge to the impugned order, it has been submitted that the same has been passed that on the the following four grounds:-

a. That petitioners are not employees of the Rural Development Department but of the D.R.D.A. which is a society in which regularization rules are inapplicable.

b. That petitioners were not working in the department as on 31.12.2001.

c. That there are no service rules applicable in the D.R.D.A. and therefore, petitioners would be dis-entitled for being considered for regularization in terms of the regularization orders.

d. That petitioners are not working in the D.R.D.A. since September, 2016.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the grounds taken by the opposite parties for rejection of petitioners' claim on the aforesaid four grounds are clearly fallacious since they are not only against the interim orders continuing petitioners in service but also against Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra versus State of U.P. reported in AIR OnLine 2021 ALL 675 as also being against specific findings recorded by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation.

11. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the representation of petitioners have been disposed of in accordance with relevant prevailing Rules and Government Orders with the observation that petitioners are working on daily wage basis in the D.R.D.A. and their services are not with the State Government under any contract agreement. It is also submitted that petitioners are ineligible for regularization in terms of the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group-C and Group-D Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 since there are not working in any Government Department. It is also submitted that petitioners' claim for regularization is against provisions of the Government Order dated 08.09.2010 which provides that in future all vacancies shall be filled in through outsourcing and particularly since petitioners are not working against any posts. He further submits that judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Bihar versus Upendra Kumar reported in 2009 SCC 65, ad hoc, temporary or daily wages employees are not entitled to claim regularization in service as a matter of right and since petitioners are not working against any post, they are dis-entitled to claim regularization.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it transpires that petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5355 (S/S) of 1995 seeking regularization in service. By means of judgment and order dated 01.05.2013 while disposing of their petition, this Court has clearly observed the statement made in the counter affidavit regarding dates of initial engagement of petitioners which is 01.05.1999 and 01.01.1991 respectively. The order also indicates that opposite parties do not deny that daily wagers working in D.R.D.A. can be regularized but the only hurdle is that the petitioners do not fall within cut-off date i.e. 01.07.1997. The Court, thereafter, places reliance on Government Order dated 08.09.2010 and in view of admission by opposite parties issued a direction for consideration of petitioners' cases in terms of Government Order dated 08.09.2010 particularly since petitioners had been engaged on daily wages basis prior to the cut-off date of 29.06.1991 and therefore, finding was recorded that they fell within the zone of consideration for being regularized in service. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-

"In view of the latest Government Order dated 08.09.2010 and also considering the fact that the opposite parties have admitted in the counter affidavit that services of daily wagers could be regularized provided they were engaged within the cut off date of 01.07.1987, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to consider the case of petitioners keeping in view the fact that the Government Order dated 08.09.2010 states that services of the daily wage employees who were engaged initially till 29.06.1991 have to be regularized. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners were engaged on 01.05.1989 and 01.01.1991 by the District Rural Development Agency, Faizabad i.e. prior to the cut off date of 29.06.1991 as provided in the Government Order dated 08.09.2010. Thus, they fall within the zone of consideration for being regularized in service."

13. Thus the intention of this Court was quite evident in the judgment and order dated 01.05.2013 that petitioners clearly fell within the scope of regularization and the cut-off date indicated in the Government Order dated 08.09.2010. Apparently it is only on account of fact that regularization orders were required to be passed by the administrative authorities that such a discretion was left to them.

14. It is also evident that during pendency of the said writ petition filed in the year 1995, petitioners were orally terminated from service in the year 1999 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6860 of 1999 in which vide interim order dated 23.12.1999, they were directed to be continued in service. It is also evident that after judgment and order dated 01.05.2013, opposite parties rejected petitioners' claim vide order dated 22.06.2013 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 878 of 2014 and despite continuance of interim order dated 23.12.1999 in Writ Petition No. 6860 of 1999, they were again terminated from service which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 24559 of 2016 and were again protected by this Court vide interim order dated 07.10.2016.

15. It is also evident that petitioners' case for regularization were again rejected by opposite parties for second time vide order dated 29.05.2017 in pursuance of directions issued by this Court on 11.05.2017. The primary ground for rejection as indicated in judgment and order dated 06.01.2025 in Writ-A No. 22848 of 2017 is financial constraint since the D.R.D.A. would be unable to bear financial aspect for regularization.

16. This Court while allowing the petition quashed the order dated 29.05.2017 primarily ground that petitioners have been working since long and the State being a model employer is expected to consider grievance of petitioners for regularization as per rules. Direction was, therefore, issued for reconsideration of regularization in accordance with relevant rules and the Government Order dated 12.11.2016. The present impugned order has been passed in pursuance thereof on the grounds indicated hereinabove. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is thus evident that petitioners' representation for regularization have been rejected for the third time on the four grounds indicated hereinabove.

17. So far as ground no. (a) is concerned that petitioners are employees of D.R.D.A. which is a society and are not employees of the Rural Development Department, assuming the aforesaid to be correct, the aspect is clearly covered by Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra (supra) in which it has been clearly held that D.R.D.As. have been established in each district with the State Government having all pervasive control over its administration and is therefore, a state within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench has also held that although there are no service regularizations in any of the D.R.D.As. pertaining to its employees but in terms of the Government Order dated 17.03.1994, matters which are not specifically covered with the Government Order or any other special order would be regulated by such rules, regulations and orders which generally apply to Government servants serving with regard to the affairs of the State. The relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Kalyani Mehrotra (supra) are as follows:-

"20. From the aforesaid directions issued by the Government of India and the State Government and the object for which the DRDAs have been established in each district with present structure, it is clear that the State Government has all pervasive control over the administration of the DRDA and all the DRDAs existing in various districts of the State have a uniform administrative set up, created by the State Government under the directions of Central Government.

21. The status of DRDAs was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anoop Rai Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others [Writ Petition No.458 (S/B) of 2000 and other connected matters]. The same formed the basis of another Division Bench judgment in Pitamber (supra) whereunder it was held that the DRDA is 'State' within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The said fact is undisputed between the parties and has been followed in various subsequent judgments of this Court as well. However, the said judgment also held that the employees of DRDA do not hold any civil post under the Government and consequently are not Government employees.

32. It is undisputed that : -

(a) the DRDA is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 but has nonetheless been held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is an accepted position.

(b) there are no service regulations in any of the DRDAs pertaining to its employees throughout the State of U.P.

(c) in the absence of service rules, the State Government had issued notification dated 17.03.1994 indicating the conditions of service which were to be applicable upon all the employees of DRDA in uniformity throughout the State of U.P.

(d) consequent upon their establishment, almost identical bye-laws were framed by the DRDA in all the Districts in which the State Government has been empowered to issue policy directions and guidelines for the proper functioning of DRDA throughout the Sate of U.P. including conditions of service of its employees.

(e) employees of the DRDA throughout the State of U.P. has been absorbed in the department of Rural Development of the State Government vide Government Order dated 18.07.2016.

41. From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that no specific service condition has been indicated pertaining to compassionate appointment but a reading of paragraph 2 (9) of the Government Order indicates that other matters which are not covered specifically with the Government Order or any other special order pertaining to employees of the DRDA would be regulated by such rules, regulations and orders which generally apply to Government servants serving with regard to affairs of the State.

42. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order makes it evident that there is no specific exclusion of compassionate appointment being granted to employees of the DRDA in terms of the 1974 Rules. On the contrary, the said provision clearly indicates that matters which are not specifically covered in the Government Order would be regulated and applicable as per the rules, regulations and orders generally applicable upon Government servants serving with regard to State affairs. As such, it is clear that compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules would be covered under the said paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order.

47. A perusal of the Government Order does make it evident that the service rules applicable upon Government servants with regard to appointment, seniority, promotion, reservation etc. have been made applicable upon employees of the DRDA. Although, the said rules are specifically mentioned in the Government Order while omitting any such specific mention with regard to the 1974 Rules but in view of paragraph 2(9), denial of applicability of the 1974 Rules would come within the purview of the said doctrine. Once the opposite parties have provided certain benefits to employees of the DRDA in terms of the Government Order then it would be impermissible to permit them to deny the benefits of other service conditions covered under paragraph 2(9)."

18. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that D.R.D.A. despite being a society comes within purview of 'State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and service conditions as applicable to State Government employees would also govern service conditions of employees of D.R.D.A.

19. In such circumstances, the first ground of rejection that petitioners are employees of D.R.D.A. would be meaningless once petitioners would be covered by service regulations which are applicable upon Government servants.

20. On the same analogy, the opposite parties have rejected petitioners' claims in ground (c) that since there are no service rules applicable to employees of D.R.D.A. such as petitioners, they would be dis-entitled for consideration in terms of Government Order dated 21.12.2016. The said reasoning of course would also be erroneous in view of the fact that the D.R.D.A. has been held to be a society but coming within scope of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and service regulations of Government employees being applicable upon them.

21. So far as grounds (b) and (d) are are concerned, they are clearly against interim protection granted to petitioners by this Court firstly vide order dated 23.12.199 passed in Writ Petition No. 6860 of 1999 and again on 11.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 24559 of 2016 (S/S). In fact if it is the case of opposite parties that petitioners were not working either with the department or with the society as on 31.12.2001 and since September, 2016, they would definitely be coming within scope of contempt for disobeying interim directions passed by this Court.

22. Upon perusal of the Rules of 2016, particularly Rule 2 thereof, it is also evident that petitioners having been employed as daily wagers with D.R.D.A. do not come within the exclusion clause under Rule 2 of the Rules 2016. On the contrary a perusal of Rules of 2016 clearly indicate petitioners coming within the scope of the aforesaid provisions since admittedly they were engaged on daily wage basis before 31.12.2001 and was also held by this Court in its judgment and order dated 01.05.2013, the relevant portion which has been reproduced hereinabove.

23. It is, therefore, apparent that petitioners are clearly covered by the aforesaid Rules of 2016.

24. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, since appropriate orders pertaining to regularization are required to be passed by the executive authorities, requirement is for reference to be made to such authorities to consider cases of such employees. However, in the present case, it is evident from the record that petitioners have been agitating for their cause of regularization ever since 1995 with such representations being rejected twice earlier on flimsy grounds which were set aside by this Court.

25. By means of the impugned order, their claim has been rejected for a third time on grounds which are clearly unsustainable. In view of long pending litigation of petitioners pertaining to the regularization and this Court having thrice now found in favour of petitioners, who also being covered under the regularization Rules of 2016, this Court does not deem it appropriate to remit the matter for consideration of authorities afresh in view of their incalcitrant attitude.

26. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders specifically indicating regularization of petitioners in terms of Rules of 2016 w.e.f. 12.09.2016. Orders with regard to same shall be be passed within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of the this order is served upon the concerned authority. Petitioners shall be eligible only for the consequential benefits on notional basis.

27. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. parties to be their own cost.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

September 22, 2025

Satish